Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23430381›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of gastroenterology2013

Can mosapride citrate reduce the volume of lavage solution for colonoscopy preparation?

Masahiro Tajika, Yasumasa Niwa, Vikram Bhatia, Shinya Kondo, Tsutomu Tanaka, Nobumasa Mizuno, Kazuo Hara, Susumu Hijioka, Hiroshi Imaoka, Koji Komori and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of gastroenterology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Patient-reported outcomes and measures applied in individuals undergoing colonoscopy surveillance for colorectal cancer: a scoping review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Masahiro TajikaDepartment of Endoscopy, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Nagoya 464-8681, Japan. mtajika@aichi-cc.jp
Yasumasa Niwa
Vikram Bhatia
Shinya Kondo
Tsutomu Tanaka
Nobumasa Mizuno
Kazuo Hara
Susumu Hijioka
Hiroshi Imaoka
Koji Komori
Kenji Yamao
Aichi Cancer Center · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo evaluate the possibility of reducing the volume of polyethylene glycol (PEG)-electrolyte solution using adjunctive mosapride citrate for colonoscopy preparation.

methodsThis was a single-center, prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded, non-inferiority study involving 252 patients of both sexes, aged from 20 to 80 years, scheduled for screening or diagnostic colonoscopy in our department. A total of 126 patients was randomized to receive 1.5 L PEG-electrolyte solution plus 15 mg of mosapride (1.5 L group), and 126 received 2 L PEG-electrolyte solution plus 15 mg of mosapride (2 L group). Patients completed a questionnaire on the acceptability and tolerability of the bowel preparation process. The efficacy of bowel preparation was assessed using a 5-point scale based on the Aronchick scale. The primary end point was adequate bowel preparation rates (score of excellent/good/fair) vs (poor/inadequate). Acceptability and tolerability, as well as disease detection, were secondary end points.

resultsA total of 244 patients was included in the analysis. There were no significant differences between the 2 L and 1.5 L groups in age, sex, body mass index, number of previous colonoscopies, and the preparation method used previously. The adequate bowel preparation rates were 88.5% in the 2 L group and 82.8% in the 1.5 L group [95% lower confidence limit (LCL) for the difference = -14.5%, non-inferiority P = 0.019] in the right colon. In the left colon, the adequate bowel preparation rates were 89.3% in the 2 L group and 81.1% in the 1.5 L group (95% LCL = -17.0%, non-inferiority P = 0.066). Compliance, defined as complete (100%) intake of the PEG solution, was significantly higher in the 1.5 L group than in the 2 L group (96.8% vs 85.7%, P = 0.002). The proportion of abdominal distension (none/mild/moderate/severe) was significantly lower in the 1.5 L group than in the 2 L group (36/65/22/3 vs 58/48/18/2, P = 0.040). Within the subgroup who had undergone colonoscopy previously, a significantly higher number of patients in the 1.5 L group than in the 2 L group felt that the current preparation was easier than the previous one (54.1% vs 28.0%, P = 0.001). The disease detection rate was not significantly different between the two groups.

conclusionAlthough the 1.5 L group had better acceptability and tolerability, 15 mg of mosapride may be insufficient to compensate for a 0.5-L reduction of PEG solution.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBenzamidesCatharticsChi-Square DistributionElectrolytesFemaleHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedMorpholinesPatient SatisfactionPolyethylene GlycolsBenzamidesCatharticsElectrolytesMorpholinesmosapridePolyethylene GlycolsBowel preparationColonoscopyMosapride citratePolyethylene glycol-electrolyte solutionProkinetics

Identifiers

PMID23430381
PMCPMC3574599
OpenAlexW2104895319

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.